Talk:Thought: Difference between revisions
→Definition: Reply |
m Reverted edit by 2401:BA80:AA11:4DA7:1:2:C130:6721 (talk) to last version by MiniMikeRM |
||
(19 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | |||
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|thought}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=High}} |
|||
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Society|class=C}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Cognitive science}} |
||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject Cognitive science|class=C}} |
|||
{{WP1.0|class=C|importance=Low|category=category|VA=yes}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
Line 60: | Line 56: | ||
This subject <big>EXPLICITLY</big> studies the mind and its precesses. However, it is composed of many subjects including AI, Psychology, Philosophy, Linguistics etc... Should some of these subjects be replaced since cognitive science "absorbs" them? After all, the field is dedicated to it. |
This subject <big>EXPLICITLY</big> studies the mind and its precesses. However, it is composed of many subjects including AI, Psychology, Philosophy, Linguistics etc... Should some of these subjects be replaced since cognitive science "absorbs" them? After all, the field is dedicated to it. |
||
== Common hyperlink == |
|||
== Changes to Therories of Thinking, Platonism section == |
|||
is the hyperlink to common really necessary? doesnt add anything to the article and makes article seem more cluttered. [[User:Tospsy|Tospsy]] ([[User talk:Tospsy|talk]]) 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thought&diff=1088364167&oldid=1088367670 made an edit] to the Theories of thinking section, Platonism subject which was soon reverted by [[User:Phlsph7]], and returning later finding such [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thought&diff=1088430579&oldid=1088367670 made another], only to once more have undone by [[User:Phlsph7]]. I don't mean to suggest that the content of the original was necessarily problematic. I do know, however, that the plurality of antecedent ought find agreement with any subsequent usage of pronoun (viz Platonic forms implies original ones and not one), and that any supposed difficulty in thinking would arise most likely through an inability rather than ability (viz able should instead be written unable or ill-able). The edits caught my attention mainly because the structure was awkward to grasp, as opposed to any specific intention I had to add anything new to their content. [[User:Lispenard|Lispenard]] ([[User talk:Lispenard|talk]]) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC) [[User:Lispenard|Lispenard]] ([[User talk:Lispenard|talk]]) 07:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello {{u|Lispenard}}, I have already responded to your inquiry [[User_talk:Phlsph7#grammar%2C_grammar_again|on my talk page]]. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 10:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It shouldn't be linked per [[MOS:OVERLINK]]. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 11:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
so here's what I got so far: |
|||
Viewed as such, difficulty in the mind's realisation stems from being less than adept at grasping thought wherein Platonic forms might arise, and thus fail to behold in these their original Natures - distinct from the but mere glimpses we receive through the sensory world. Succeeding meant, to illustrate, being both able to experience Beauty herself - together, yet alone, and at once in harmony - with all her derivative manifestations in all their diverse attribute, variform aspect, and unremitting splendour. |
|||
== Nature of thought == |
|||
[[User:Lispenard|Lispenard]] ([[User talk:Lispenard|talk]]) 20:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
This article very articulately and in great detail outlines various types of thoughts. However, I'm actually looking for a definition of "thought," and for that the article is disappointing. What, exactly, is a thought? Does it have an independent existence? What is the nature of it's substance? Is it physical? Just ponder: the brain works by firing neurons. They create an electrical impulse by the flow of sodium and potassium ions across a membrane. That is the totality of the brain's mechanism. So how can sodium and potassium ions crossing a membrane produce a Shakespearean sonnet? How does a "thought" emanate from the transmembrane ion fluxes? Some exploration of those aspects of thought would help this article. [[Special:Contributions/70.187.40.175|70.187.40.175]] ([[User talk:70.187.40.175|talk]]) 03:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:There is no point discussing this issue at two different places at the same time. In the future, please do not start two parallel discussions on an editor talk page and on the article talk page. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 04:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello and thanks for your feedback. If I understand you correctly, you are not looking for a definition in the traditional sense but you would like to learn more about the metaphysical dimension of thought. Some of this is covered in the subsection [[Thought#Metaphysics]]. Is this roughly the topic you had in mind? [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 08:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Definition == |
|||
== Shortening == |
|||
IMO, there is nothing wrong with adding the definition from the textbook Clinical psychiatry by the author, professor Maric. It is well formulated, concise and clear. Therefore, I will be restoring the one sentence definition that was there prior to improvements made by the other major contributors. <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#05df78 0.1em 0.1em 1.0em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;">[[User:VS6507|Vs<sup>6</sup>]][[User talk:VS6507|<sub>5</sub><sup>07</sup>]]</font> 18:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I feel like this article needs some general cleanup, and mostly in shortening some sections. [[User:MiniMikeRM|MiniMikeRM]] ([[User talk:MiniMikeRM|talk]]) 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ul|MrOllie}} Well, what exactly tells you that the opening sentence is not as you say clear and easily understood? |
|||
Let's take a look at the sentence: |
|||
{{quote|'''Thought''' is defined as an "aim-oriented flow of ideas and associations that can lead to a reality-oriented conclusion".}} |
|||
aim-oriented means oriented towards a goal or an aim. |
|||
Flow is a fairly common noun. |
|||
Ideas and associations too. |
|||
Reality-oriented conclusion is a conclusion that is based on reality, in other words what is real. |
|||
Therefore, for example, my idea was to check if there is still this definition there for people to read it and gain knowledge from it. The association was this article on the English Wikipedia, which was, as I suppose, thanks to you greatly improved. My conclusion would be that you don't like the content. [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] |
|||
My suggestions would be: |
|||
#Adding a definition based on my literature in Simple English + adding a Definiton section. |
|||
#Restoring IMO very nice definition + adding a Definition section. |
|||
#All of the above without addition of Definition section. |
|||
#A combination of these. |
|||
Kindly, |
|||
<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#05df78 0.1em 0.1em 1.0em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;">[[User:VS6507|Vs<sup>6</sup>]][[User talk:VS6507|<sub>5</sub><sup>07</sup>]]</font> 18:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, to some extent noting that an addition is badly written is always 'IDONTLIKEIT'. That doesn't mean that we want to have a badly written encyclopedia. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ul|MrOllie}} Okay, I appreciate your edit on [[Thought (disambiguation)|this page]]. |
|||
Do you concur with the addition of the improved version of the definition from that page in this form: |
|||
{{quote|Thought is a mental process, that consists of ideas and associations, which allows beings to come to conclusions, be conscious, make decisions, imagine and, in general, operate on symbols in a rational or irrational manner.}} |
|||
<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#05df78 0.1em 0.1em 1.0em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;">[[User:VS6507|Vs<sup>6</sup>]][[User talk:VS6507|<sub>5</sub><sup>07</sup>]]</font> 18:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Way too many clauses. I'm not even sure what that sentence is actually trying to communicate. I do not find it to be an improvement. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 11:18, 28 November 2024
This level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Thought as an abstract form
[edit]The brain generates and uses countless abstract forms/objects. The elemental abstract forms are thoughts (as elemental organic forms are cells), the most complex are skills, sciences, languages etc. Abstract forms/objects, although non-dimensional (shapeless), are energetically real (not 'imaginary'), as material forms are real (telekinesis, moving material objects/forms with thoughts, is a direct proof of that). Quantum physicist David Bohm (see: Thought as a System) among many others, also realized this, and dedicated many of his efforts bringing up the importance of thoughts to humankind: "Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us..."
According to Rupert Sheldrake every abstract form, like every organic form, relates to a certain morphic field.
Unsigned comment
[edit]I came to this entry hoping to see various psychophysical, epigenetic, or perhaps esoteric(new thought, rosecrucians, theosophists etc.) hypotheses to the question "what is thought?" Surely a thought or abstraction is a thing composed of matter an energy. I found the entry to be quite unsatisfying.
merge with idea
[edit]what's the difference between a thought and an idea?!
That answer is online here - http://cnx.org/content/m14812/latest/
also, many differences and the relationship between thoughts, emotions and feelings is discussed in my online book "The Psychology of Emotions, Feelings and Thoughts" online here - http://cnx.org/content/m14358/latest/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.163.183 (talk)
Thinking effects
[edit]Result 1:
Favors in thinking comes from lacking of understanding how something works in life.
Example: Business Business owners use the limitations of human's education abilities as a tool for producing primary products for customers use for a profit range which changes as the economic cycle turns in stages.
Ex: TV mational and international People's lacking in knowing hoe electronics use electric energy for powering up a TV device.
So animation and vibraion from audio to reproduce a copy of a recording that will have fans amazed for centuries.
So this is one example that cause a business to be great from having people use there limits in understanding as a main source to buiness gains.
So everything is all about what people know and what people don't know. Key concept (patterns in life)
Cognitive Science
[edit]This subject EXPLICITLY studies the mind and its precesses. However, it is composed of many subjects including AI, Psychology, Philosophy, Linguistics etc... Should some of these subjects be replaced since cognitive science "absorbs" them? After all, the field is dedicated to it.
Common hyperlink
[edit]is the hyperlink to common really necessary? doesnt add anything to the article and makes article seem more cluttered. Tospsy (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be linked per MOS:OVERLINK. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Nature of thought
[edit]This article very articulately and in great detail outlines various types of thoughts. However, I'm actually looking for a definition of "thought," and for that the article is disappointing. What, exactly, is a thought? Does it have an independent existence? What is the nature of it's substance? Is it physical? Just ponder: the brain works by firing neurons. They create an electrical impulse by the flow of sodium and potassium ions across a membrane. That is the totality of the brain's mechanism. So how can sodium and potassium ions crossing a membrane produce a Shakespearean sonnet? How does a "thought" emanate from the transmembrane ion fluxes? Some exploration of those aspects of thought would help this article. 70.187.40.175 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your feedback. If I understand you correctly, you are not looking for a definition in the traditional sense but you would like to learn more about the metaphysical dimension of thought. Some of this is covered in the subsection Thought#Metaphysics. Is this roughly the topic you had in mind? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Shortening
[edit]I feel like this article needs some general cleanup, and mostly in shortening some sections. MiniMikeRM (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles